Quantum phase estimation with lossy interferometers

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Demkowicz Dobrzanski, R ^a   Dorner, U ^b   Smith, B J ^b,c   Lundeen, J S ^b   Wasilewski, W ^d   Banaszek, K ^a   Walmsley, I A ^b  

^a NICOLAUS COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL FORMULAS; CONVEX OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS; OPTIMAL PRECISION; PHASE ESTIMATION; PHOTON LOSS; PHOTON NUMBERS; QUANTUM PHASE ESTIMATION; QUANTUM STATE; STANDARD QUANTUM LIMITS;

CONVEX OPTIMIZATION; ESTIMATION; INTERFEROMETERS; INTERFEROMETRY; LIGHT; LIGHT TRANSMISSION; PHOTONS; QUANTUM THEORY;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 69449096151     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.013825     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004). 10.1126/science.1104149
2. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.010401
3. M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature (London) 429, 161 (2004). 10.1038/nature02493
4. H. S. Eisenberg, J. F. Hodelin, G. Khoury, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 090502 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.090502
5. T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O'Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 316, 726 (2007). 10.1126/science.1138007
6. K. J. Resch, K. L. Pregnell, R. Prevedel, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O'Brien, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 223601 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.223601
7. B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nature (London) 450, 393 (2007). 10.1038/nature06257
8. B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, New J. Phys. 11, 073023 (2009). 10.1088/1367-2630/11/ 7/073023
9. J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevA.54.R4649
10. S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.3865
11. A. Shaji and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A 76, 032111 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.032111
12. M. Sarovar and G. J. Milburn, J. Phys. A 39, 8487 (2006). 10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/015
13. S. D. Huver, C. F. Wildfeuer, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 78, 063828 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.063828
14. U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 040403 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.040403
15. M. A. Rubin and S. Kaushik, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053805 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.053805
16. M. H. G. Gilbert and Y. Weinstein, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 1336 (2008). 10.1364/JOSAB.25.001336
17. D. Meiser and M. J. Holland, New J. Phys. 10, 073014 (2008). 10.1088/1367-2630/10/7/073014
18. C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976).
19. A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982).
20. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439
21. S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 247, 135 (1996). 10.1006/aphy.1996.0040
22. Sometimes a weaker condition of asymptotic local unbiasedness is imposed, i.e., unbiasedness of estimation when the estimator is calculated using data coming from a very large number of repetitions of an experiment (see, e.g.,).
23. O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, J. Phys. A 33, 4481 (2000). 10.1088/0305-4470/33/24/306
24. G. A. Durkin and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070801 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.070801
25. R. A. Fisher, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 22, 700 (1925). 10.1017/S0305004100009580
26. A. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042304 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.042304
27. D. Petz, Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 244, 81 (1996). 10.1016/0024- 3795(94)00211-8
28. K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3195 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevA.55.3195
29. D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5098 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5098
30. L. Maccone and G. De Cillis, Phys. Rev. A 79, 023812 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.023812
31. Claims in that the state given by Eq. 48 outperforms even the optimal states we have presented arise from taking a different perspective in quantifying the resources. See Sec. 7 for more discussion.
32. Up to now, no effective nondestructive photon-number measurement was realized. Nevertheless, as most quantum optical experiments work in the postselection paradigm, this is not really a limitation since the number of photons can be detected afterward and only appropriate events taken into account.
33. H. F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A 79, 033822 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.033822
34. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 4, 17 (2006). 10.1142/S0219749906001591